Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 177–190 | Cite as

The population dynamics ofLernaeocera lusci andL. branchialis on intermediate hosts

  • P. A. van Damme
  • F. Ollevier
Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

The metapopulation dynamics ofLernaeocera lusci andL. branchialis on soleSolea solea and flounderPleuronects flesus were studied in the Dutch coastal area. Both fish species harboured large numbers of parasites when they arrived in the coastal area in the spring. Between April and June all parasites detached from the intermediate hosts and infected the definitive hosts (0+ whitingMerlangius merlangus forL. branchialis, and possibly sand gobyPomatoschistus minutus forL. lusci). Thereafter, flounder remained almost parasite-free until autumn. This suggests thatL. branchialis has only 1 generation per year. However, soles were infested again withL. lusci (in June and July), which detached to infest 0+bibTrisopterus luscus, the typical definitive host for this parasite species. Thus, it appears thatL. lusci has 2 generations per year. The flounder length and the infection intensity ofL. branchialis were not correlated throughout the study period. Significant positive correlations were found between the sole length and infection intensity ofL. lusci in late spring, but not in the summer or autumn. Throughout the year, bothL. lusci andL. branchialis were aggregated within their intermediate host populations (variance ≫ ≫ abundance).

Keywords

Waste Water Water Management Water Pollution Fish Species Population Dynamic 

Literature cited

  1. Anstensrud, M., 1989. Experimental studies on the reproductive behaviour of the parasitic copepodLernaeocera branchialis (Pennellidae). J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K.69, 465–476.Google Scholar
  2. Anstensurd, M., 1990a Mating strategies of two parasitic copepods [Lernaeocera branchialis (L.) (Pennellidae) andLepeophtheirus pectoralis (Müller) (Caligidae)] on flounder: polygamy, sexspecific age at maturity and sex ratio.-J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol136, 141–158.Google Scholar
  3. Anstensrud, M., 1990b. Effects of mating on female behaviour and allometric growth in the two parasitic copepodsLernaeocera branchialis (L., 1767) (Pennellidae) andLepeophtheirus pectoralis (Müller, 1776) (Caligidae).-Crustaceana59, 245–258.Google Scholar
  4. Anstensrud, M., 1992. Mate guarding and mate choice in two copepods,Lernaeocera branchialis (L.) (Pennellidae) andLepeophtheirus pectoralis (Müller) (Caligidae), parasitic on flounder.-J. crust Biol.12, 31–40.Google Scholar
  5. Elliot, J. M., 1977. Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biol. Ass. Ambleside, Westmoreland, 160pp.Google Scholar
  6. Hamerlynck, O., Geets, A. & Van Damme, P. A., 1989. The parasites of two sympatric gobiesPomatoschistus minutus andP. lozanoi in the Belgiar coastal waters. In: Invertébrés de Belgique. Institute Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Bruxelles, 27–30.Google Scholar
  7. Hamerlynck, O. & Hostens, K., 1993. growth, production and consumption in 0+ group bidTrisopterus luscus and whitingMerlangius merlangus in a shallow coastal area of the SW Netherlands. ICES J. mar. Sci.50, 81–91.Google Scholar
  8. Hamerlynck, O., Hostens, K., Arellano, R. V., Mees, J. & Van Damme, P. A., 1993. The mobile epibenthic fauna of soft bottoms in the Dutch Delta (south-west Netherlands): spatial structure.-Neth. J. quat. Ecol.27, 343–358.Google Scholar
  9. Kabata, Z., 1958.Lernaeocera obtusa n. sp.: Its biology and its effects on the haddock.-Mar. Res.3, 1–26.Google Scholar
  10. Kabata, Z., 1979. Parastic Copepoda of British fishes. The Ray Society, London, 2018 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Slinn, J. D., 1970. An infestation of adultLernaeocera (Copepoda) on wild sole,Solea solea, kept under hatchery conditions.-J. mar. biol. Ass. U. K.50, 787–800.Google Scholar
  12. Sproston, N. G. & Hartley, P. H. T., 1941. The ecology of some parasitic copepods of gadoids and other fishes.-J. mar. biol. Ass. U. K.25, 361–392.Google Scholar
  13. Stekhoven, J. H., 1936. Beobachtungen zur Morphologie und Physiologie derLernaeocera branchialis undL. lusci.-Z. Parasitkde8, 659–696.Google Scholar
  14. Van Damme, P. A. & Hamerlynck, O., 1992. The infection dynamics and dispersion pattern ofLernaeocera branchialis L. on 0+ whiting (Merlangius merlangus L.) in the Oosterschelde (SW Netherlands).-J. Fish Biol.41, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Damme, P. A., Maertens, D., Arrumm, A., Hamerlynck, O. & Ollevier, F., 1993. The role ofCallionymus lyra andC. reticulatus in the life cycle ofLernaeocera lusci in Belgian coastal waters (Southern Bight of the North Sea).-J. Fish Biol.42, 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Van Damme, P. A., Hamerlynck, O. & Ollevier, F. 1996. The population dynamics of the parasitic copepodeLernaeocera lusci (Bassett-Smith, 1896) on its definitive host.-Helgländer Meeresunters.50, 179–192.Google Scholar
  17. Van den Broek, W. L. F., 1979. Copepod ectoparasites ofMerlangius merlangus andPlatichthys flesus.-J. Fish Biol.14, 371–380.Google Scholar
  18. Whitfield, P. J., Pilcher, M. W., Grant, H. J., & Riley, J., 1988. Experimental studies on the development ofLernaeocera branchialis (Copepoda: Pennellidae): population processes from egg production to maturation on the flatfish host.-Hydrobiologia167–168, 579–586.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Biologische Anstalt Helgoland 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. A. van Damme
    • 1
  • F. Ollevier
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of EcologyZoological InstituteLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations